I've practiced Karate (blackbelt) and TKD (redbelt) and some of the techniques can be useful in MMA competition and a street fight. Someone stated and I wish I quoted it, that MT kicks are so awesomely powerful, they are off the charts........have you ever gotten kicked by a TKD practitioner other than a wht, yellow or orange belt????? I've got some strong kicks myself. Now, truth be told I wouldn't use a spinning hook, a jump side kick or anything fancy in an MMA fight or a street fight......save those flashy kicks for forms and the movies! I do however use low leg kicks and of course a nice snappy roudhouse to the mid section! My TKD training is useful to me.....I use the kicks for the most part. Blocking your face is important and I believe that comes from training. I don't think that any TKD instructors would purposely decide not to teach how to block the face, although in point sparring you don't have to worry much because contact to the face is frowned upon! I think it all comes down to how you train and for what. I'm sure if a person who only took TKD decided to get into MMA he sure better be great at it or learn bjj or something! I don't think a TKD practitioner could be solid in the cage if he only depended on TKD. Me, I've moved on to bjj and MMA training!!!!!!

Not even worth debating.
How many mma fighters use TKD, compared to muay thai?
Theres your answer.

MMA is still in its infancy. Just 'cause something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Regardless, I'm so sick an tired of people who can't back their stance. Statements like "not even worth debating" would make me think that you wouldn't be able to do a decent job debating it -- even if you did find it 'worth your while.'

To address some things that js9234 mentioned... Elbows and knees. At the place where I took TKD, these were practiced to a degree -- admittedly, far less than they would be at MT place. However, these things are most useful in the clinch, and are relatively easy to defend against when NOT in the clinch. In my personal opinion, the excellent clinch work is what really separates Muay Thai from alot of other striking martial arts. As for the power of the kicks, TKDs method is very similar except for the fact that MT excludes the chambering of the leg during roundhouse kicks. Where they generate most of the power from is the torquing of the shoulders, which carries the same motion over to hips... which then channels power through the legs, etc etc. Back when I was doing TKD, for power roundhouses we were also taught to perform that turning of the shoulders and hips to create a whip-like motion. Once again...the main difference was the chamber of lack of it. However, in TKD point sparring, alot of practitioners get lazy and exclude components of techniques which add power. That is a problem that afflicts practically every martial arts that does point sparring.

In the end, it really comes down to how you train. If for some reason, a Muay Thai place did excessive point-sparring I bet they'd be pretty craptacular. And at the same time, there are some TKD places that work very hard on conditioning. Though, an advantage that Muay Thai does have over traditional martial arts, is that its a sport. In a sport, there's no time to practice forms and stuff. Full attention is put upon getting good at the actual game. And because of that, while alot of traditional arts have the potential, they aren't practiced in a manner that is fitting for MMA competition.

Oh, and by the way Dragonfury72BJJ, I do agree with you that TKD can't hold its own in MMA by itself. But then again, what art can? Can pure MT hold its own? Nope. Can pure BJJ? Nope. Thus is the beauty of MMA.

Okay, bottom line: it all comes down to how you train.
In fact, you don't need to follow any style to be good at fighting (particularly for sport MMA). All you have to do is train your natural weapons and learn how to utilize them.
That's called the art of "fighting".

Here's a suggestion: forget that you're learning a certain style. Just know that you're learning how to fight, and you'll have to train every part of your body, every natural weapon you possess, so that you can do whatever you have to do to survive a fight.

No, mma is not in it's infancy. It didn't start with UFC.
TKD has had half a century to prove itself and has largely failed to do so.
I did TKD for two years. As a fighting style, it is innaffective. If it was useful in MMA, it would be used, but it isn't. Try me, I love a good debate, and I have trained in both Muay thai and TKD.
But you can't prove TKD works in MMA as a style, as awhole, because it hasn't.

Edit: And it does have more to do with the way you train than the art you train in.

But you can't prove TKD works in MMA as a style, as awhole, because it hasn't.

Edit: And it does have more to do with the way you train than the art you train in.

As it is, the purist contests of "style vs style" don't exist anymore. In that regards, you cannot prove that any style works in MMA "as a whole." I also don't see how anyone can say a powerfully thrown kick isn't effective.

Now if you're playing a numbers game, then you can clearly lay out the styles that are more prevalent. But the funny thing about the whole "TMA vs X-Style," is that all of the styles begin to dissolve once they start getting mixed up. In that regard, it ultimately ends up being about the fighters. Your disclaimer at the end is proof of this.

Here's the thing... Once everything is distilled down into its purist form, it becomes about the fighter and how they train their techniques. Taking that into account, people will train differently depending on what their intentions are. A collegiate wrestler is going to train his wrestling techniques differently for MMA than he would for the NCAA. It's the same reason why amateur boxers will usually find new coaches if they turn pro, as the pro boxing game is very different. It's also the same reason why BJJ train Submission Wrestling (no gi) and adjust their grappling to MMA as getting punched in the face changes the ground game drastically.

But to blatantly claim that any style that will help develope skills in one area or another of combat is "useless" is grossly ignorant. It's like saying boxing is useless to MMA because it only teaches you how to punch.

On a side note: For as bad as the decades old trend of "McDojos" in the more "traditional" Martial Arts is, the same thing is happening in rapid fashion with both BJJ and MT also. Need proof? I find the Blue Belt program pricing outling here on this page of the Gracie Academy website a little disheartening. But what can you expect when you make your living off of enrollment fees and people don't stick around because they don't get their belts as fast as ABC Dojo?

__________________It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree... As long as I don't bore you and I spark a moment of thought, my goal is achieved.

No, mma is not in it's infancy. It didn't start with UFC.
TKD has had half a century to prove itself and has largely failed to do so.
I did TKD for two years. As a fighting style, it is innaffective. If it was useful in MMA, it would be used, but it isn't. Try me, I love a good debate, and I have trained in both Muay thai and TKD.
But you can't prove TKD works in MMA as a style, as awhole, because it hasn't.

Edit: And it does have more to do with the way you train than the art you train in.

It's not in its infancy? You'll have to enlighten me on that one. I'll refrain from certain commentary until I'm clear on what you mean by that.

You say that TKD doesn't work in MMA as a whole? Well, as I mentioned earlier, there's hardly a single art thats well equipt to stand alone in a sport such as MMA. However, there are techniques from pretty much every martial art that is effective, and you have to sift those out from the ineffective. Essentially, what you are as a fighter is determined by how you utilize the techniques you know. Even if you take the six effective techniques from TKD, modify it for your environment, and learn some grappling... If you succeed, you can call yourself a TKD fighter.

Well, MMA the sport, the fighting style, which is now what we see when we tune into 'Mixed Martial Arts' competitions
has come about in the recently, but the concept of no holds barred fighting, vale tudo matches etc. are not.
So MMA the fighting style is in it's infancy, but thats not what I was talking about, which couldhavebeen confusing.
I mean when TKD was tested against other martial arts in these competitions it did poorly. As a striking art, well it is miles behind Muay thai.
And what six effective techniques from TKD? So take three different punches, three different kicks from TKD, walk into a match and then put your opponent in an armbar, are you gonna say ''My victory is down to my TKD training!'
Well, what was the point of styles in the first place?
They weren't excluding techniques for a laugh, they did it because they thought other techniques were inneffective.
Styles are methodsof fighting, some have provenmore effective in actual combatthan others, and TKD is not one.

Well, MMA the sport, the fighting style, which is now what we see when we tune into 'Mixed Martial Arts' competitions
has come about in the recently, but the concept of no holds barred fighting, vale tudo matches etc. are not.
So MMA the fighting style is in it's infancy, but thats not what I was talking about, which couldhavebeen confusing.
I mean when TKD was tested against other martial arts in these competitions it did poorly. As a striking art, well it is miles behind Muay thai.
And what six effective techniques from TKD? So take three different punches, three different kicks from TKD, walk into a match and then put your opponent in an armbar, are you gonna say ''My victory is down to my TKD training!'
Well, what was the point of styles in the first place?
They weren't excluding techniques for a laugh, they did it because they thought other techniques were inneffective.
Styles are methodsof fighting, some have provenmore effective in actual combatthan others, and TKD is not one.

It's true that no holds barred fighting has been around for a while, but I'd find it hard to argue that it hasn't grown leaps and bounds since the arrival of modern day MMA. No one from the olden days of vale tudo could compare with the athletes of today, simply because everyone is so much more well rounded.

In the example you gave about taking six striking techniques and seizing victory by armbar... Well, I'd say that the practitioners striking experience (TKD in this case) aided him in evading blows and closing the distance to bring the fight to the range that he apparently desired. I mean, just if I were a BJJ stylist and I managed to defend against a flurry of strikes only to end the match with a submission, I would assign credit to where its due. My grappling skills was the offense, and my striking skill was the defense. Any win that I'd achieve, I would credit it to every applicable technique that I had applied in the match.

Admittedly, TKD doesn't tend to do well against other striking styles. However, I would attribute that to how they train more than the style itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. However, most who wield it do a poor job. It's like a boxer who throws straight punches from really close, and throws hooks from a distance. He has the tools, he's just using them wrong.

A counter arguement that I would expect to arise would be that TKD practitioners in general tend to utilize their techniques poorly. That is unfortunately the result of its evolution as a sport. Karate has gone that way as well, despite the fact that there's not much inherently wrong about it. I guarantee you that, if Muay Thai became afflicted with the same circumstances, it too would become victim to charlatans who would tarnish it for the sake of money.

An advantage MT has in this case is that there is no belt system. The curse of the belt has played a major part in the downfall of traditional martial arts. Say MT had reached the levels of popularity that TKD and Karate had achieved. Now also, lets say that MT had a belt system.

People would flock to instructors, hoping to learn how to fight just like their favorite Muay Thai film stars. However, coming face to face with the sometimes grueling hardships and discipline involved with hard training, many would drop out. Instructors would find it difficult to maintain their gyms without students to pay for it. So, some clever businessman would start a buy-a-belt dojo, where everything would be toned down. The sparring would be lighter and more bearable to the average shmuck hoping for an easy belt. Standards for competency would drop for the sake of dispensing belts to assure students of possibly undeserved progress. And that would sell.

Flash forward several generations, everyone wants to do MT -- master it quickly, and with little difficulty. They would further warp the sparring environment for the sake of participant comfort. Perhaps get rid of free sparring altogether, and just apply a 'first-touch' point system. Then, because dealing actual damage would no longer be a factor, techniques would change to meet the circumstances. Why bother with a full out roundhouse? Its so slow compared to a simply flick of the leg, and so obsolete in a 'first-touch' environment.

Next thing you know, everyone on youtube is like "MT IZ A JOKE Y DO U LZRS DO MOO TAI WIT ITZ FLIPPY KICKZ?"

So, despite the fact that MT was solid at its core, the changes made to suit the lazy consumer would warp it into pure junk.

I only bring up with hypothetical situation, because I realized that when most people refer to TKD, they have olympic bull**** in mind. They're painfully unaware of how TKD had been modified, and consequently weakened.

My main arguement would be about how one can simply take certain techniques from any art and utilize them effectively. However, if one has little reference to real TKD, they probably couldn't even see any such techniques within the style regardless.